The REAL question is, how long do they keep their backups?
Apparently almost in perpetuity, according to Google. This isn't surprising, given their stated desire to store/index everything, and also their stated intentions to use the information they have for data mining.
One of the things that used to keep data retention times down was the cost of storage. You only kept information that was absolutely critical, and even then there were limits, because of the cost of media, and the physical restraints on space. That cost has been dropping steadily - what I used to spend for a good-quality 500MB hard drive will buy me a 500GB drive today. With the constraints on storage pretty much disappearing from the media, the only real constraints left are storage space for the backup media, the life-span of the media, and policies.
FTA: and with a tiny little screen," is one of his criticisms. Yet... also FTA: "Gates showed off a new "ultra-mobile computer" which runs Microsoft Windows on a seven-inch (17.78-centimeter) touch screen."
Let's see: His criticism of the 100 dollar laptop is that it has a small screen, which point he makes right after demonstrating a computer with a small screen.
But I don't get it, at least not for someone who is a computer enthusiast.
For some of us, it's being able to something that doesn't remind us of work. I've noticed that when my job involves extensive computer useage (programming, network admin, repair) my home use of computers drops like a stone. OTOH, when I've been in positions where I don't use a computer much, my home use rises markedly. If I'm spending 8 or more hours a day in front of a computer, or working on the insides of one, I really don't feel the urge to spend even more time doing it at home. I'd rather go out, read a book, watch TV, anything except be on a computer. It's too much like work, not fun.
How many people even understand more than half the lines?
How many people can understand more than half the lines of 133t speak without recourse to a dictionary? Suprisingly, while English has changed more than many other languages in the same time frame, a considerable percentage of Shakespeare's words are comprehensible - and particularly if spoken.
Genuine devotion to Shakespeare is confined to small circles who perpetuate him for its own sake, rather than because of a genuine passion for it.
Yet, somehow his works are continously readapted by modern media, worldwide. People continue to perform his plays, use his words, and yet... according to you there's no "genuine passion". Interesting definition of genuine you have.
Don't take my word for it -- how much of *your* own time did you voluntarily devote to the work of Shakespeare in the past, say, 12 months? And remember, you're at the very, very, very, very high end.
Well, let's see - I recently re-read The Taming of the Shrew - you know, this obscure little work that spawned several movies and a Broadway musical, Hamlet, another work which has spawned quite a number of adaptations, and As You Like It, which, you guessed it, has also spawed a few movies, including a direcct version starring such little-known actors as Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson among others. I know, the "fanatical followers" who seem to be almost every actor, director, and screenwriter in existence. I've spent several hours, at least.
I don't like all of Shakespeare - for example, I loathe A Midsummer's Night Dream, but that doesn't equate to a general disdain for him. As I said, no, I didn't appreciate him in high school, but that was more due to teachers who made the subject matter dull, which is apparently what happened with you. Unlike you, I later was able to overcome that. I also see in another repsonse you point to the lack of revenue from small theater companies performing Shakespeare. OK, here's a question: How many theater groups of any kind are independent of government funding or private donations? Answer: Almost none. It has nothing to do with whether they perform Shakespeare or not.
Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today?
Yes. Next question?
How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA?
I recall having to study many things in school that I didn't enjoy versus playing any game. Including Shakespeare. Interestingly, after I'd gotten several years out of school, I came to appreciate his works much better, and yes, enjoy them.
And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!
No, it's not that they're 500 years old, it's that they're great works that speak to common themes in the human condition. Just as Don Quixote is still read and enjoyed, even though it's almost as old. Even as Beowulf is read and enjoyed, even though it's far older. The Odyssey, the Iliad. They're great stories, which deal with human conflicts and actions that are still going on. The themes carry on throughout the generations. That's what makes them great. We read them because they're great, they aren't great because we still read them.
The submission makes it seem like these companies are moving into the "enterprise-level computing" arena dominated by the big players. What the article ends up saying, after the hype, is that these companies are putting together custom-build server sets that use Linux. This is news? Oh, wait, they're "breaking out of HPC".. yet everything in the article is pretty much devoted to describing their HPC builds and customers. Yes, that's neat, but what does that mean in terms of competing with the big three? Ah...they have plans to move into the "enterprise"! OK, again, it's neat what they're doing, but they're still niche players, and I'm still not seeing how they're any threat to Dell, HP, or IBM. Those three already have and support Linux, a pretty good range of hardware, support, and marketing capability. I think there's a place for these other companies, and they're doing some really incredible things with Linux - but I don't see them pushing the big three.
You raise some good points, but then again, it wasn't too long ago that it was considered "impossible" to get mammalian nerve tissue to regenerate. Now it's being shown that it can be done, even if in a limited manner.
There's still a lot of ground that has to be covered, and there's going to be a lot of false leads as well. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with one of the pioneers of transplant surgery. The tales he told of the difficulties they faced back in the 1950's trying to figure out the immune system, how to get around tissue rejection, and the blind alleys, miserable failures and occasional successes. What they did show was that it was possible, and these days transplant surgery is something that is now a standard (although still risky) option.
It's still the early stages here, and just showing that it's possible is step one. No, I don't think that it'll be a standard treatment for humans anytime soon, and I fully expect that like transplants there'll be a lot of missteps, wrong leads, and failures, but down the line, there will be treatments.
How much is it going to cost? That's the answer that the rest of us who have to justify this type of roll out.
Exactly. It's not just Open Office training, either. It's the desktop use itself. I've seen a lot of people here talking about the "free software", security, and stability. Yes, those are benefits, but "free" does not mean "without costs."
How many hours have any of you put in to getting "good" at any given OS? I'm not talking about being able to totally design, configure, and admin a network from scratch, or being able to custom code any scripts or configurations. I'm talking about being able to do a new install, basic set-up and configuration, debug any small issues that arise, and update it without having to refer to a manual or cheat sheet. Being able to start it up and actually be productive on it.
If you totaled it up, you'd probably be surprised. Even if you are a "geek," you still spend time finding where everything is and getting comfortable with it. In a business environment, that time = money! Time to train the users to use their new desktop and applications. Time while they get comfortable and fully productive with it. All of that is a cost.
With Vista on the horizon, there's an opportunity for Linux on the desktop. Companies are going to be looking at the costs of migration, new software, and yes, training and temporarily lower productivity. The question is how much more cost and how rapid it will be to train and become productive with OSS, as opposed to retraining+software+OS for MS. That's what people need to stress, not just free software.
Definitely a major point. I spent several minutes poking around this web site trying to figure out exactly what this program does, what it looks like, and why I'd want to use it. I finally found the screen shots, but while they tell me what the program looks like, it gives me no overall picture of the functionality in terms of RW use, let alone why I'd want to use it.
If you're trying to attract users, at the very least you need to give them an up-front look at your program, defining exactly what it does, and why someone would want/need it. What sets you apart? Give me a good reason, and make it easy for me to find the information.
Is it really worth delaying the release for more then a month just to polish it out a little bit?"
Yes, it's worth it. FTA, this isn't a release aimed at the "average Linux user." It's meant for enterprises, and it's important to get it right. It's something that can be a big point for the adoption of Linux in the desktop workspace, that this is a distro which looks good, has a wide range of language options, and has support. Spending a rather trivial amount of time getting it fully ready is what should be done, rather than try to hit an arbitrary "release date", only to, a few weeks later, do the MS routine of "here's the update package, Service Pack X".
The idea that amateurs don't (or can't) do good science or make important discoveries is a more recent addition to popular culture - and it's wrong.
Admittedly, there are fields where it's true - like particle physics, stem cell research, or transplant biology, since the "entry level" for equipment and training is something you're not going to be able to pick up on the cheap (unless you're Bill G).
That said, there are many fields where 'amateurs' not only make important discoveries, they're actually the predominant workers in those fields. Comet discoveries and near-earth astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, and geology among others all have large numbers of amateurs - even outnumbering the "professionals".
What's interesting and exciting about this is that it's given a new set of tools for everyone who's interested to use.
I also like the Baen books system, and I've bought quite a number of their Webscription titles. What I like about eBooks is the opportunity to get titles that may not be stocked in various bookstores. It might be that it's out-of-print, or just not from a 'best-selling author!', and I just don't feel like going through the hassle of wading through Amazon or B&N to try to find it. If it's available as an eBook, great, I'll get it.
However, that doesn't mean I'm giving up 'dead tree' versions. Most of the reasons I have are the same as everyone else's: Lack of portability, poor reading experience, and cost of readers. Plus, I have yet to find any format that enables me to do the 'page flip' - that is, where I'm doing a quick scan of an already-read book and looking for a certain section - but I'm not quite sure where in the book it is, or precise "search term". With a paper book, I can scan through pretty quickly, with an e-book, it's a major pain-in-the-**s.
Less competition = less push for innovation, higher prices, and every reason Bell was broken up in the first place.
No, it was broken up because of an antitrust suit brought by MCI. The sad part was that AT&T was one of the most innovative companies in the world. Witness the transistor - a Bell Labs product. If anything, the monopoly hurt them because they were not (because of regulations) allowed to take advantage of their innovations outside of the telephone market.
What they did have was something that's been dropped - service. You needed a phone installed, it was done, and done quickly. Have a problem? Fixed. Need to talk to someone about an issue? There was someone on the end of the line. Compare that today's "advantages". Need a phone installed? Wait a week or two. Got a problem with your line? Maybe they'll get around to fixing it in the next month. Have a problem with your bill, or need to talk to someone about an issue with your phone service? Welcome to the support hell of pushing buttons, listening to recorded messages, pushing more buttons, and maybe at the end of it you'll get to talk to someone who may speak English. (sarcasm) Oh yeah, we're so much better off!(/sarcasm)
As for "stop bits" and all that jazz... you're a moran. Once you get it going you're set. Usually 8-N-1 was the default and worked with the modems I used (both internal and external). Those settings were only between you and the modem. The modem had it's own protocols which were also ITU standards...
Maybe in the early 80s when mode
Hmm.. I know how to spell "moron". I also don't suffer from your reading disability. What part of the "first part of the decade" and the "'80's" did you miss? All of it, apparently.
By the time you were getting into BBS's, things had pretty much standardized around the Hayes command set (the "AT" commands you mention). Just to give you hint, all the things I mentioned are things I actually did, to arrange data transfer between computers and to access BBS's back in the early 80's. It was by no means 8-N-1 as a "standard." There were quite a few that used a 7-bit system, some required even or odd parity settings, and even setting flow control method.
Imagine if in the 80s and 90s each vendor had their own take on UARTs. Yes, there were some variations but more often than not a RS-232 device "just worked". Because of that many devices were created that extended the computer era. E.g. modems, mice, printers, plotters, joysticks, primitive networking:-), etc, etc, etc.
Funny, I have a quite different memory of the '80's! Most of the "standardization" you seem to feel was obvious wasn't accomplished until the latter part of the decade. Prior to that, modems used a number of different communication protocols, you had a number of different networking protocols and connectors, printers frequently needed to have new cabling made from scratch and drivers written, and joysticks were dependent on the particular brand of computer you bought. That doesn't count the number of different cards (and novel connectors)needed. Even something as "simple" as a monitor connection wasn't simple.
Yes, that all changed fairly quickly, but it wasn't that way in the beginning. Today I don't have to worry about telling my computer to use a dialup modem with so many bits, stop bit or no stop bit, echo or no echo, set the speed, etc. I just tell it to connect. But, I remember having to do that.
In some ways, Linux is where we were in the mid-to-latter part of the 80's. Yes, a lot of it was starting to standardize and become easier, but there were still a lot things we'd have to customize on occasion. It didn't bother the tech-savvy people all that much, but it drove the people who were just starting to use computers absolutely nuts.
First off, you need evaluate what you're doing with these computers. Are they for the students, or the teachers? What exactly are the people who are using them doing with them? Is the software specific to the OS, or can it be ported? Is there an alternative?
From your description, it sounds like you have a mix of computers, ranging from older to newer. Getting XP to run on the older ones is likely to be an exercise in frustration all by itself.
If the student's are the ones using the computers, why not turn it into an educational opportunity? Use Linux on the older computers, XP on the newer computers. You're already running three OSs, this way you're moving to two, and giving them an opportunity to see what each one does. Most of the "standard" stuff (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) can be done on either.
This way you have a chance to use your older systems, educate your students, and save money. It also gives you a chance to evaluate both systems. Alternatively, you could also look to see if MS would cough up some reduced cost licenses - or heck, even give it to you free. They've been known to do that.:-D
What should you be doing to equip your daughter? Start reading to her. Get her coloring books, the picture books, and let her explore. Teach her that reading is fun.
The key word in "technological literacy" is literacy. In today's world, exposing your child to technology is easy. It's all around us. But being able to read is the key skill in understanding it.
They have this quaint notion that if they treat their customers well, their customers will respect their copyrights.
Let me add a second vote to this! They offer a "free library", with a selection of titles from various authors. Then, on their Webscriptions side, you can also read a few chapters of books they're publishing, and if you like, you can buy it right there, or run out and get the dead tree version. What I also like is that it keeps tabs of what you've purchased. If you accidentally delete the book, or have a hard drive crash (no, we never have those, do we?:-D) you simply go back and download it again. Well worth the time to check it out, and support.
I hate this San Francisco style techno babble. It involved misusing common words to make the ordinary seem new,
But then you wouldn't be a proactive, forward-thinking outside-of-the-box market leader! You wouldn't be able to make up new words like "coopetition"!
On a more serious note, it's not really San Francisco techno-babble. It's another attempt by a business executive to sound like they have a novel idea. Many businesses have realized over the years that there are times and areas they where they have to cooperate, as well as competing. Up until this point, none of them felt called upon to come up with a brand new word for it. Apparently the case here is that MS has, after more than a decade, realized that it isn't going to be able to totally dominate every single aspect of the IT world. That Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, and other OSs are not going away. They're finally starting to understand - not fully, and not without a lot of kicking and screaming - that they're going to have to work and play well with the other OSs, because people are demanding it.
The difference is that programming languages are usually pretty logical and to achieve an aim there's usually an obvious and correct way of solving a problem.
Exactly. It's one of those areas that the concept of "copyright," as it was originally meant, becomes problematical, even meaningless. Even if a "clean room" development is done, it's still going to look a lot like the original coding, simply because there are only so many ways to write working code. This is why it's lead to a lot of the legal battles, unfortunately.
To put it into a different perspective, parts of the bible are disgusting and perverse in the extreme in my view. Should I have the right to have the bible banned from public libraries because of those views?
Let me guess, you also believe that you should be able to read your Hustler in a elementary school yard during recess? Yes, parts of the Bible are offensive - remember the Soviets banned it not because it was "religious" but because it was "pornography". That said, there is a difference between a book sitting on a shelf that you have to pull out and go sit down and read, versus putting up pictures on a computer screen that anyone can see walking by, and if you're going to some movie site, have to listen to. You don't leave nice, easily accessed bookmarks and pointers for the next person who comes along to see, like you do with a computer.
Now, if you want to have separate sections of computers, with private "adult only" areas in libraries, fine, I'll back you.
FTA: "Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement."
How about doing that before you send them out? It's one of those little points the rest of us would call: "obvious".
I'd be the first to say that you shouldn't be viewing porn sites on a library computer, and no, I don't think you have the "right" to use a publically funded, public access computer to do so. Get your own computer, a broadband connection, and go to town if you want to do that.
I do have a problem when you get to the terms "obscene" or "offensive." An amazing number of things can get rolled into those terms. I also find the idea that some "official" person is going to harass me even more offensive than any material on a computer screen. This seems to be a new extension of an old battle. Remember when the fight was over what books were in a library? That some government bureaucrat can tell me what I'm allowed to see or know is the most dangerous thing of all.
There are times when I wonder why some people think it's "cool" to pervert technology. Phone Phreaks, crackers, virus writers, and now botnets. I've seen them for almost 25 years, and each generation uses the same lame justifications for their behavior. "It's easy money." "It's free." "People are dumb." "If I didn't do it, someone else would." etc., etc., etc.
It isn't cool, and it's not a "victimless crime." People who get infected are victims, because they have software they don't want on their computers, risk identity theft, suffer through poor performance with their computers, and end up having to pay someone to help them. Companies and businesses lose, because they have to spend money and time fixing problems that could be spent doing something productive. We all are victims, since each one of those botnets create problems for us by taking useful services off-line through DDOS attacks, or forcing admins to block traffic from various IP's - and we might just be in that batch of blocked IPs. Even the ad company's are getting ripped off.
I found this quote from the article ironic: "It sucks, too, because the companies will shaft you, and there isn't a lot you can do about it," says Majy, 19, who claims to have had as many as 30,000 computers in his botnet."
He's complaining about being ripped off by the people he's trying to rip off! Excuse me while I devote a nanosecond to feeling sorry for him. They need to get a clue. Yeah, maybe with a real education and job you won't make 10 grand a month now and then. But, you also don't have to worry about people crashing through your door, and spending a few years getting pwned by the guys at the prison.
Slashdot Mirror
The REAL question is, how long do they keep their backups?
Apparently almost in perpetuity, according to Google. This isn't surprising, given their stated desire to store/index everything, and also their stated intentions to use the information they have for data mining.
One of the things that used to keep data retention times down was the cost of storage. You only kept information that was absolutely critical, and even then there were limits, because of the cost of media, and the physical restraints on space. That cost has been dropping steadily - what I used to spend for a good-quality 500MB hard drive will buy me a 500GB drive today. With the constraints on storage pretty much disappearing from the media, the only real constraints left are storage space for the backup media, the life-span of the media, and policies.
FTA: and with a tiny little screen," is one of his criticisms. Yet... also FTA: "Gates showed off a new "ultra-mobile computer" which runs Microsoft Windows on a seven-inch (17.78-centimeter) touch screen."
Let's see: His criticism of the 100 dollar laptop is that it has a small screen, which point he makes right after demonstrating a computer with a small screen.
Hello? Bill? Clue?
But I don't get it, at least not for someone who is a computer enthusiast.
For some of us, it's being able to something that doesn't remind us of work. I've noticed that when my job involves extensive computer useage (programming, network admin, repair) my home use of computers drops like a stone. OTOH, when I've been in positions where I don't use a computer much, my home use rises markedly. If I'm spending 8 or more hours a day in front of a computer, or working on the insides of one, I really don't feel the urge to spend even more time doing it at home. I'd rather go out, read a book, watch TV, anything except be on a computer. It's too much like work, not fun.
How many people even understand more than half the lines?
How many people can understand more than half the lines of 133t speak without recourse to a dictionary? Suprisingly, while English has changed more than many other languages in the same time frame, a considerable percentage of Shakespeare's words are comprehensible - and particularly if spoken.
Genuine devotion to Shakespeare is confined to small circles who perpetuate him for its own sake, rather than because of a genuine passion for it.
Yet, somehow his works are continously readapted by modern media, worldwide. People continue to perform his plays, use his words, and yet... according to you there's no "genuine passion". Interesting definition of genuine you have.
Don't take my word for it -- how much of *your* own time did you voluntarily devote to the work of Shakespeare in the past, say, 12 months? And remember, you're at the very, very, very, very high end.
Well, let's see - I recently re-read The Taming of the Shrew - you know, this obscure little work that spawned several movies and a Broadway musical, Hamlet, another work which has spawned quite a number of adaptations, and As You Like It, which, you guessed it, has also spawed a few movies, including a direcct version starring such little-known actors as Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson among others. I know, the "fanatical followers" who seem to be almost every actor, director, and screenwriter in existence. I've spent several hours, at least.
I don't like all of Shakespeare - for example, I loathe A Midsummer's Night Dream, but that doesn't equate to a general disdain for him. As I said, no, I didn't appreciate him in high school, but that was more due to teachers who made the subject matter dull, which is apparently what happened with you. Unlike you, I later was able to overcome that. I also see in another repsonse you point to the lack of revenue from small theater companies performing Shakespeare. OK, here's a question: How many theater groups of any kind are independent of government funding or private donations? Answer: Almost none. It has nothing to do with whether they perform Shakespeare or not.
Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today?
Yes. Next question?
How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA?
I recall having to study many things in school that I didn't enjoy versus playing any game. Including Shakespeare. Interestingly, after I'd gotten several years out of school, I came to appreciate his works much better, and yes, enjoy them.
And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!
No, it's not that they're 500 years old, it's that they're great works that speak to common themes in the human condition. Just as Don Quixote is still read and enjoyed, even though it's almost as old. Even as Beowulf is read and enjoyed, even though it's far older. The Odyssey, the Iliad. They're great stories, which deal with human conflicts and actions that are still going on. The themes carry on throughout the generations. That's what makes them great. We read them because they're great, they aren't great because we still read them.
The submission makes it seem like these companies are moving into the "enterprise-level computing" arena dominated by the big players. What the article ends up saying, after the hype, is that these companies are putting together custom-build server sets that use Linux. This is news? Oh, wait, they're "breaking out of HPC" .. yet everything in the article is pretty much devoted to describing their HPC builds and customers. Yes, that's neat, but what does that mean in terms of competing with the big three? Ah...they have plans to move into the "enterprise"! OK, again, it's neat what they're doing, but they're still niche players, and I'm still not seeing how they're any threat to Dell, HP, or IBM. Those three already have and support Linux, a pretty good range of hardware, support, and marketing capability. I think there's a place for these other companies, and they're doing some really incredible things with Linux - but I don't see them pushing the big three.
You raise some good points, but then again, it wasn't too long ago that it was considered "impossible" to get mammalian nerve tissue to regenerate. Now it's being shown that it can be done, even if in a limited manner.
There's still a lot of ground that has to be covered, and there's going to be a lot of false leads as well. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with one of the pioneers of transplant surgery. The tales he told of the difficulties they faced back in the 1950's trying to figure out the immune system, how to get around tissue rejection, and the blind alleys, miserable failures and occasional successes. What they did show was that it was possible, and these days transplant surgery is something that is now a standard (although still risky) option.
It's still the early stages here, and just showing that it's possible is step one. No, I don't think that it'll be a standard treatment for humans anytime soon, and I fully expect that like transplants there'll be a lot of missteps, wrong leads, and failures, but down the line, there will be treatments.
How much is it going to cost? That's the answer that the rest of us who have to justify this type of roll out.
Exactly. It's not just Open Office training, either. It's the desktop use itself. I've seen a lot of people here talking about the "free software", security, and stability. Yes, those are benefits, but "free" does not mean "without costs."
How many hours have any of you put in to getting "good" at any given OS? I'm not talking about being able to totally design, configure, and admin a network from scratch, or being able to custom code any scripts or configurations. I'm talking about being able to do a new install, basic set-up and configuration, debug any small issues that arise, and update it without having to refer to a manual or cheat sheet. Being able to start it up and actually be productive on it.
If you totaled it up, you'd probably be surprised. Even if you are a "geek," you still spend time finding where everything is and getting comfortable with it. In a business environment, that time = money! Time to train the users to use their new desktop and applications. Time while they get comfortable and fully productive with it. All of that is a cost.
With Vista on the horizon, there's an opportunity for Linux on the desktop. Companies are going to be looking at the costs of migration, new software, and yes, training and temporarily lower productivity. The question is how much more cost and how rapid it will be to train and become productive with OSS, as opposed to retraining+software+OS for MS. That's what people need to stress, not just free software.
3. Revamp your website.
Definitely a major point. I spent several minutes poking around this web site trying to figure out exactly what this program does, what it looks like, and why I'd want to use it. I finally found the screen shots, but while they tell me what the program looks like, it gives me no overall picture of the functionality in terms of RW use, let alone why I'd want to use it.
If you're trying to attract users, at the very least you need to give them an up-front look at your program, defining exactly what it does, and why someone would want/need it. What sets you apart? Give me a good reason, and make it easy for me to find the information.
Is it really worth delaying the release for more then a month just to polish it out a little bit?"
Yes, it's worth it. FTA, this isn't a release aimed at the "average Linux user." It's meant for enterprises, and it's important to get it right. It's something that can be a big point for the adoption of Linux in the desktop workspace, that this is a distro which looks good, has a wide range of language options, and has support. Spending a rather trivial amount of time getting it fully ready is what should be done, rather than try to hit an arbitrary "release date", only to, a few weeks later, do the MS routine of "here's the update package, Service Pack X".
The idea that amateurs don't (or can't) do good science or make important discoveries is a more recent addition to popular culture - and it's wrong.
Admittedly, there are fields where it's true - like particle physics, stem cell research, or transplant biology, since the "entry level" for equipment and training is something you're not going to be able to pick up on the cheap (unless you're Bill G).
That said, there are many fields where 'amateurs' not only make important discoveries, they're actually the predominant workers in those fields. Comet discoveries and near-earth astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, and geology among others all have large numbers of amateurs - even outnumbering the "professionals".
What's interesting and exciting about this is that it's given a new set of tools for everyone who's interested to use.
I also like the Baen books system, and I've bought quite a number of their Webscription titles. What I like about eBooks is the opportunity to get titles that may not be stocked in various bookstores. It might be that it's out-of-print, or just not from a 'best-selling author!', and I just don't feel like going through the hassle of wading through Amazon or B&N to try to find it. If it's available as an eBook, great, I'll get it.
However, that doesn't mean I'm giving up 'dead tree' versions. Most of the reasons I have are the same as everyone else's: Lack of portability, poor reading experience, and cost of readers. Plus, I have yet to find any format that enables me to do the 'page flip' - that is, where I'm doing a quick scan of an already-read book and looking for a certain section - but I'm not quite sure where in the book it is, or precise "search term". With a paper book, I can scan through pretty quickly, with an e-book, it's a major pain-in-the-**s.
Less competition = less push for innovation, higher prices, and every reason Bell was broken up in the first place.
No, it was broken up because of an antitrust suit brought by MCI. The sad part was that AT&T was one of the most innovative companies in the world. Witness the transistor - a Bell Labs product. If anything, the monopoly hurt them because they were not (because of regulations) allowed to take advantage of their innovations outside of the telephone market.
What they did have was something that's been dropped - service. You needed a phone installed, it was done, and done quickly. Have a problem? Fixed. Need to talk to someone about an issue? There was someone on the end of the line. Compare that today's "advantages". Need a phone installed? Wait a week or two. Got a problem with your line? Maybe they'll get around to fixing it in the next month. Have a problem with your bill, or need to talk to someone about an issue with your phone service? Welcome to the support hell of pushing buttons, listening to recorded messages, pushing more buttons, and maybe at the end of it you'll get to talk to someone who may speak English. (sarcasm) Oh yeah, we're so much better off!(/sarcasm)
As for "stop bits" and all that jazz... you're a moran. Once you get it going you're set. Usually 8-N-1 was the default and worked with the modems I used (both internal and external). Those settings were only between you and the modem. The modem had it's own protocols which were also ITU standards... Maybe in the early 80s when mode
Hmm.. I know how to spell "moron". I also don't suffer from your reading disability. What part of the "first part of the decade" and the "'80's" did you miss? All of it, apparently.
By the time you were getting into BBS's, things had pretty much standardized around the Hayes command set (the "AT" commands you mention). Just to give you hint, all the things I mentioned are things I actually did, to arrange data transfer between computers and to access BBS's back in the early 80's. It was by no means 8-N-1 as a "standard." There were quite a few that used a 7-bit system, some required even or odd parity settings, and even setting flow control method.
Imagine if in the 80s and 90s each vendor had their own take on UARTs. Yes, there were some variations but more often than not a RS-232 device "just worked". Because of that many devices were created that extended the computer era. E.g. modems, mice, printers, plotters, joysticks, primitive networking :-), etc, etc, etc.
Funny, I have a quite different memory of the '80's! Most of the "standardization" you seem to feel was obvious wasn't accomplished until the latter part of the decade. Prior to that, modems used a number of different communication protocols, you had a number of different networking protocols and connectors, printers frequently needed to have new cabling made from scratch and drivers written, and joysticks were dependent on the particular brand of computer you bought. That doesn't count the number of different cards (and novel connectors)needed. Even something as "simple" as a monitor connection wasn't simple.
Yes, that all changed fairly quickly, but it wasn't that way in the beginning. Today I don't have to worry about telling my computer to use a dialup modem with so many bits, stop bit or no stop bit, echo or no echo, set the speed, etc. I just tell it to connect. But, I remember having to do that.
In some ways, Linux is where we were in the mid-to-latter part of the 80's. Yes, a lot of it was starting to standardize and become easier, but there were still a lot things we'd have to customize on occasion. It didn't bother the tech-savvy people all that much, but it drove the people who were just starting to use computers absolutely nuts.
First off, you need evaluate what you're doing with these computers. Are they for the students, or the teachers? What exactly are the people who are using them doing with them? Is the software specific to the OS, or can it be ported? Is there an alternative?
From your description, it sounds like you have a mix of computers, ranging from older to newer. Getting XP to run on the older ones is likely to be an exercise in frustration all by itself.
If the student's are the ones using the computers, why not turn it into an educational opportunity? Use Linux on the older computers, XP on the newer computers. You're already running three OSs, this way you're moving to two, and giving them an opportunity to see what each one does. Most of the "standard" stuff (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) can be done on either.
This way you have a chance to use your older systems, educate your students, and save money. It also gives you a chance to evaluate both systems. Alternatively, you could also look to see if MS would cough up some reduced cost licenses - or heck, even give it to you free. They've been known to do that. :-D
You should check out F-Secure , they have a very good, searchable database with descriptions of various viruses, worms, and spyware.
What should you be doing to equip your daughter? Start reading to her. Get her coloring books, the picture books, and let her explore. Teach her that reading is fun.
The key word in "technological literacy" is literacy. In today's world, exposing your child to technology is easy. It's all around us. But being able to read is the key skill in understanding it.
They have this quaint notion that if they treat their customers well, their customers will respect their copyrights.
Let me add a second vote to this! They offer a "free library", with a selection of titles from various authors. Then, on their Webscriptions side, you can also read a few chapters of books they're publishing, and if you like, you can buy it right there, or run out and get the dead tree version. What I also like is that it keeps tabs of what you've purchased. If you accidentally delete the book, or have a hard drive crash (no, we never have those, do we? :-D) you simply go back and download it again. Well worth the time to check it out, and support.
I hate this San Francisco style techno babble. It involved misusing common words to make the ordinary seem new,
But then you wouldn't be a proactive, forward-thinking outside-of-the-box market leader! You wouldn't be able to make up new words like "coopetition"!
On a more serious note, it's not really San Francisco techno-babble. It's another attempt by a business executive to sound like they have a novel idea. Many businesses have realized over the years that there are times and areas they where they have to cooperate, as well as competing. Up until this point, none of them felt called upon to come up with a brand new word for it. Apparently the case here is that MS has, after more than a decade, realized that it isn't going to be able to totally dominate every single aspect of the IT world. That Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, and other OSs are not going away. They're finally starting to understand - not fully, and not without a lot of kicking and screaming - that they're going to have to work and play well with the other OSs, because people are demanding it.
The difference is that programming languages are usually pretty logical and to achieve an aim there's usually an obvious and correct way of solving a problem.
Exactly. It's one of those areas that the concept of "copyright," as it was originally meant, becomes problematical, even meaningless. Even if a "clean room" development is done, it's still going to look a lot like the original coding, simply because there are only so many ways to write working code. This is why it's lead to a lot of the legal battles, unfortunately.
To put it into a different perspective, parts of the bible are disgusting and perverse in the extreme in my view. Should I have the right to have the bible banned from public libraries because of those views?
Let me guess, you also believe that you should be able to read your Hustler in a elementary school yard during recess? Yes, parts of the Bible are offensive - remember the Soviets banned it not because it was "religious" but because it was "pornography". That said, there is a difference between a book sitting on a shelf that you have to pull out and go sit down and read, versus putting up pictures on a computer screen that anyone can see walking by, and if you're going to some movie site, have to listen to. You don't leave nice, easily accessed bookmarks and pointers for the next person who comes along to see, like you do with a computer.
Now, if you want to have separate sections of computers, with private "adult only" areas in libraries, fine, I'll back you.
FTA: "Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement."
How about doing that before you send them out? It's one of those little points the rest of us would call: "obvious".
I'd be the first to say that you shouldn't be viewing porn sites on a library computer, and no, I don't think you have the "right" to use a publically funded, public access computer to do so. Get your own computer, a broadband connection, and go to town if you want to do that.
I do have a problem when you get to the terms "obscene" or "offensive." An amazing number of things can get rolled into those terms. I also find the idea that some "official" person is going to harass me even more offensive than any material on a computer screen. This seems to be a new extension of an old battle. Remember when the fight was over what books were in a library? That some government bureaucrat can tell me what I'm allowed to see or know is the most dangerous thing of all.
There are times when I wonder why some people think it's "cool" to pervert technology. Phone Phreaks, crackers, virus writers, and now botnets. I've seen them for almost 25 years, and each generation uses the same lame justifications for their behavior. "It's easy money." "It's free." "People are dumb." "If I didn't do it, someone else would." etc., etc., etc.
It isn't cool, and it's not a "victimless crime." People who get infected are victims, because they have software they don't want on their computers, risk identity theft, suffer through poor performance with their computers, and end up having to pay someone to help them. Companies and businesses lose, because they have to spend money and time fixing problems that could be spent doing something productive. We all are victims, since each one of those botnets create problems for us by taking useful services off-line through DDOS attacks, or forcing admins to block traffic from various IP's - and we might just be in that batch of blocked IPs. Even the ad company's are getting ripped off.
I found this quote from the article ironic: "It sucks, too, because the companies will shaft you, and there isn't a lot you can do about it," says Majy, 19, who claims to have had as many as 30,000 computers in his botnet."
He's complaining about being ripped off by the people he's trying to rip off! Excuse me while I devote a nanosecond to feeling sorry for him. They need to get a clue. Yeah, maybe with a real education and job you won't make 10 grand a month now and then. But, you also don't have to worry about people crashing through your door, and spending a few years getting pwned by the guys at the prison.
It sounds even more like he also rediscovered FidoNet. Of course, the admins did have the right to read your mail. ;)